PowerPC 970 up to 2.5GHz?

[Hawthorne]

Now to the 970. Apple could also screw the pooch with this if they do not clearly let the world know their development pipeline. Apple too often keep everything quiet until the very last minute. This usually means we all hype up what we think is going to happen, and then feel let down when we don't get what we want.

I think by playing their cards close to their chest, Apple is trying to avoid the opposite effect, known as the Osbourne Effect (no, not the drug-addled rock and roll star ). Way back in the early 80's, the Osbourne was the first successful portable computer (gad, did I really put up with a Z-80 chip back then?). The successor to it was supposed to be the hottest thing ever, a computer that would blow the doors of anything else. And we waited for it, and waited, not buying more of the current machine because the new one was supposed to be so good. Which killed the cash flow of Osbourne, and the company went out of business.

 

[howard]

i really hope apple doesn't start these off at a lower clockspeed than they can get them...but i don't think they will... partly cause i don't think that they will use them as dual. so that they'll release them as 1.8 or 2 instead of 1.4 but only as one processor. then its a big jump..but not as big. i really wish they would just release them as fast as they can with dual processor...that would seem the logical thing to do. to put out the best product that you can. but whatever

 

[iShater]

Originally posted by howard
i really hope apple doesn't start these off at a lower clockspeed than they can get them...but i don't think they will... partly cause i don't think that they will use them as dual. so that they'll release them as 1.8 or 2 instead of 1.4 but only as one processor. then its a big jump..but not as big. i really wish they would just release them as fast as they can with dual processor...that would seem the logical thing to do. to put out the best product that you can. but whatever

What would be better is that they get to a true Built-To-Order system. The Fast, Faster, Fastest crap sux. They should use those 3 preconfigs to make it easier to build, but a true customize option would rock.

Think about it. If they do not cripple any of the PowerMacs, they can offer multiple chips speeds, RAM, HDs, etc, etc.

I would love to be able to get a top of the line CPU without having to pay for a SuperDrive if I don't need it. That is a true BTO system. [Edit] Before anybody starts flaming, I am using this as an example, so don't tell me "but u can get top of the line without the SD!" [/Edit]

 

[moon.drop]

Originally posted by dukestreet
Nice, now deliver them Apple!

Damn, that would be a nice machine in dual or possibly more cpu cores.

That's the order of magnitude processing power that I've waiting for.

It's not completely up to Apple here. Remember, IBM is developing these processors. They need to hurry up and blaze past Motorola, get these processors to Apple at least in prototype form, and then Apple can develop systems which they can then ship to us!

 

[ffakr]

Originally posted by dukestreet
Nice, now deliver them Apple!

Damn, that would be a nice machine in dual or possibly more cpu cores.

That's the order of magnitude processing power that I've waiting for.

D

An order of magnitude would indicate that this processor would be 10x times faster then existing G4s.
... riiight.

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

Ishater is right a build to order computer, a lot of the stuff i dont need either. Let us order the cpu,video card,hard drive etc to suit us. I dont think we will see this though. sort of like the imac philosophy here it is take it or leave it. If the customer is king then how about acknowledge that. I love apple but sometimes feel like they are king and we the subjects.

 

[zoetropeuk]

Everybody is forgeting one thing. The majority of mainstream applications for the Mac are poorly ported PC versions. The main reason the G4 continually gets hammered in benchmarks is not due to the processor but lazy programmers. Show me one single application that has been fully optimised for the G4.
Not even OSX had been, otherwise it wouldn't run on the G3. If Adobe were to realise a version of photoshop that was fully optimised for Altivec and dual processors then not even a 4.5Ghz P4 would see the light of day.
We are yet to see a program make the best use of the G4 so what makes you think that by moving across to the 970 things will be any different.
Just take a look at the first batch of PS2 games that were released and compare them to say Tony Hawk 4. The hardware is the same, it's just that the programmers know how to push the CPU and GPU's to the limit.
Apple needs to forget this stupid G3, G4 set-up and just move everything across to ONE platform. Apple also needs a department that will optimise all major software releases for any new CPU and system that it chooses the implement.
Otherwise we are going to see the same old crappy slow applications that we do now.

 

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Ishater is right a build to order computer, a lot of the stuff i dont need either. Let us order the cpu,video card,hard drive etc to suit us. I dont think we will see this though. sort of like the imac philosophy here it is take it or leave it. If the customer is king then how about acknowledge that. I love apple but sometimes feel like they are king and we the subjects.

Apple used to do this - when I bought my B&W G3 400, I seem to remember being able customize any part of it. I think they stopped being that flexible when the SuperDrive PowerMacs came out.

 

[macmax]

I only know i want to see an add that starts with the word:


BEHOLD!!!

And then i hope the aim for the heart and head, hehhehehhehehheheheh

go mac!!!!!!

 

[iShater]

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
Apple used to do this - when I bought my B&W G3 400, I seem to remember being able customize any part of it. I think they stopped being that flexible when the SuperDrive PowerMacs came out.

You might be right, at one point they had a really good BTO system, then they made it a Build-To-Margin system. How to force the customer to choose the more expensive system because of one friggin thing they need. I mean it is great for Apple's bottom line, but it is not good for building market share and being able to compare to other makers.

 

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by drastik
Sure, you can get a $600 PC, but it has SDRAM not DDr, no firewire, CD-ROM instead of superdrive, etc, etc.

Just for acuracy, DDR is SDRAM. "SD" stands for Syncronous Dynamic, not Single Data rate as many seem to think.

Your point is that the cheapo PC's come with non-DDR ram where Mac's do. Problem with that arguement is that untill we get processors with DDR capable front end's it really doesn't help all that much. (Sure the system controller can make some use of it by spreading other DMA requests arround from the other busses, but computationally, it means squat.)

I've said it hear a 100 times, give the PowerPC a DDR FSB and watch it screem - ESPECIALLY on AltiVec enhanced applications. AltiVec is memory starved at speeds well below 1Ghz.

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

Originally posted by zoetropeuk
Everybody is forgeting one thing. The majority of mainstream applications for the Mac are poorly ported PC versions. The main reason the G4 continually gets hammered in benchmarks is not due to the processor but lazy programmers. Show me one single application that has been fully optimised for the G4.
Not even OSX had been, otherwise it wouldn't run on the G3. If Adobe were to realise a version of photoshop that was fully optimised for Altivec and dual processors then not even a 4.5Ghz P4 would see the light of day.
We are yet to see a program make the best use of the G4 so what makes you think that by moving across to the 970 things will be any different.
Just take a look at the first batch of PS2 games that were released and compare them to say Tony Hawk 4. The hardware is the same, it's just that the programmers know how to push the CPU and GPU's to the limit.
Apple needs to forget this stupid G3, G4 set-up and just move everything across to ONE platform. Apple also needs a department that will optimise all major software releases for any new CPU and system that it chooses the implement.
Otherwise we are going to see the same old crappy slow applications that we do now.

I agree with a lot of what you have said. they do need to go with 1 cpu across the whole line then they could optimize for that 1 unit and then get software makers do the same. Right now we have g3,g4 altivec,os9,osx what they need is 970 and optimized X and give software makers help in utilizing that to the fullest. Bravo post!

 

[yzedf]

Blade

Just for those among you that don't know what a Blade is...

http://www.pc.ibm.com/us/eserver/xseries/bladecenter_family.html

To Arn:

Regarding your "clear win" statement, the BSD base for OS X makes the OS, as well as the programs that run on the OS very portable. x86, x86-64, PPC, are just as easy to do, for the most part. PPC kinda sucks due to Altivec, same as P4 with HT.

2 hardware generations from now we could very well laugh and say "remember when were stuck with PPC?! Thank goodness that junk is gone!"

 

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by zoetropeuk
Everybody is forgeting one thing. The majority of mainstream applications for the Mac are poorly ported PC versions. The main reason the G4 continually gets hammered in benchmarks is not due to the processor but lazy programmers. Show me one single application that has been fully optimised for the G4.
Not even OSX had been, otherwise it wouldn't run on the G3. If Adobe were to realise a version of photoshop that was fully optimised for Altivec and dual processors then not even a 4.5Ghz P4 would see the light of day.
We are yet to see a program make the best use of the G4 so what makes you think that by moving across to the 970 things will be any different.
Just take a look at the first batch of PS2 games that were released and compare them to say Tony Hawk 4. The hardware is the same, it's just that the programmers know how to push the CPU and GPU's to the limit.
Apple needs to forget this stupid G3, G4 set-up and just move everything across to ONE platform. Apple also needs a department that will optimise all major software releases for any new CPU and system that it chooses the implement.
Otherwise we are going to see the same old crappy slow applications that we do now.

The reason they can run the G3 and the G4 at the same time is that the G4 is basically a G3 with an integer unit. The base architecture is the same. Even if a program was optimized to work to it's fullest on a G4 it would most likely still work on a G3 and vice versa. The real slowdown right now is that the system and all the software is not only OS9 friendly but still has code in there for 604 and older processors.

I agree on one point for sure though. Apple needs to put out a better compiler with more automation for Altivec optimization.

 

[zoetropeuk]

Even if a program was optimized to work to it's fullest on a G4 it would most likely still work on a G3 and vice versa.

This is not true. If you compile a small app to add a set of integers together that only uses alitvec then it WILL NOT WORK ON A G3, at all.
And we don't want to see pansy automated compilers, we want programmers to do what their paid to do and program. We want hand optimised altivec applications.

I'd pay 3 or 4 times the price for apps that are 4-8 times faster.

 

[os4]

logistics

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Ishater is right a build to order computer, a lot of the stuff i dont need either. Let us order the cpu,video card,hard drive etc to suit us. I dont think we will see this though. sort of like the imac philosophy here it is take it or leave it. If the customer is king then how about acknowledge that. I love apple but sometimes feel like they are king and we the subjects.

There are two concepts at work with Apple's ordering process:

1) the "3 Choices rule" - people are most comfortable with three choices.

2) Apple needs to control its operations. The best way to do that is to simplify as much as possible. Each additional choice multiplies the logistical issues involved in putting the machines together. It would be nice if Apple added a "Power User" section to the Apple Store to allow for more choice; however, I am sure Apple has studied this issue and decided that the incremental revenue is less than the incremental costs.

 

[nuckinfutz]

Oh there's plenty of Altivec Optimizations

Photoshop BTW is not a PC port. It was born on the Mac.

Altivec is going to take some time for developers to master like any tool.

There are plenty of apps that show Altivecs power.

Photoshop
iDVD
Altiverb
Blast

Just wait until the Altivec isn't starved by slow bus throughput. You're seeing the crippling effects of a bus that cannot let Altivec shine.

I see a nice 2004 with the fastest G4's going into iBooks and iMacs and PPC 970's in the Pro Series. Just like it's supposed to be.

 

[os4]

good option, but ...

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
Ishater is right a build to order computer, a lot of the stuff i dont need either. Let us order the cpu,video card,hard drive etc to suit us. I dont think we will see this though. sort of like the imac philosophy here it is take it or leave it. If the customer is king then how about acknowledge that. I love apple but sometimes feel like they are king and we the subjects.

There are two concepts at work with Apple's ordering process:

1) the "3 Choices rule" - people are most comfortable with three choices.

2) Apple needs to control its operations. The best way to do that is to simplify as much as possible. Each additional choice multiplies the logistical issues involved in putting the machines together. It would be nice if Apple added a "Power User" section to the Apple Store to allow for more choice; however, I am sure Apple has studied this issue and decided that the incremental revenue is less than the incremental costs.

 

[nuckinfutz]

This is not true. If you compile a small app to add a set of integers together that only uses alitvec then it WILL NOT WORK ON A G3, at all.

That's generally a non factor. OSX makes it easy to include both Altivec and non altivec binaries in a Package. The end user never needs to know.

 

[law guy]

Re: One Word: AltiVec

Originally posted by Frobozz
True. But let's look at the VERY CONVINCING arguements for it:

3) Motorloa has no plans for a G5 desktop chip. IBM seems to with the 970. Why make a desktop version of a multi-core server chip without guarateed sales? You could make the arguement for their low end UNIX servers and Blade servers (see press release), but that is NO WHERE near the volume needed to recoup R&D. Apple will be.

Frobozz, the PC Magazine feb. 4 issue with the processor roadmap stated that Motorola would have a new processor in Q3 aimed at being the G4's successor and competing with the 970 for that role. Has Motorola cancelled their (what must be very far along) development?

 

[Raiden]

My question is, if apple annownces the 970 at MWNY, saying the new processor will be availible in 2-3 months, what will motorola do? If I were motorola, I would be really pissed off that one of my biggest clients is jumping ship to a company that offers a better product than me. Therefore would motorola stop making G3s and G4s?

I guess im wondering is apple keeping their use of the 970 secret because they are afraid motorola will get angry? Does motorola know about apple and their supposed use of the 970?

sorry for all the questions...

 

[nuckinfutz]

Therefore would motorola stop making G3s and G4s?

No not at all. Apple has sourced both companies for G3's and mainly Moto for G4's.

Motorola designes the G3/G4 for embedded applications.

Cisco uses a G4 in a Router. There are more markets than just Apple for Moto G4/G4 processors.


The PPC 970 is squarely aimed at Desktops however. Apple will be able to use both for some time.

 

[law guy]

Originally posted by Raiden
My question is, if apple annownces the 970 at MWNY, saying the new processor will be availible in 2-3 months, what will motorola do? If I were motorola, I would be really pissed off that one of my biggest clients is jumping ship to a company that offers a better product than me. Therefore would motorola stop making G3s and G4s?

I guess im wondering is apple keeping their use of the 970 secret because they are afraid motorola will get angry? Does motorola know about apple and their supposed use of the 970?

sorry for all the questions...

From a deal point of view, one would think that Apple is talking with whoever it intends to buy their next gen chips from at this point - unless they're mocking up systems for both a Moto and an IBM G5 and still haven't made any decisions as to which is best. I imagine that Moto / IBM must have some inclination of what's going to be happening with orders three months from now.

 

[hacurio1]

Originally posted by arn
No "clear win"?

How about 100% application compatability vs 0% ?

arn

Couldn’t agree more Arn!!!

People here who question whether Apple will use the 970 or not aren’t very perceptive of what is going on right now! First, what options does Apple have? Is there any other PPC chip coming? NO!!! Will they go x86? NO!!!!! I know, “970’s in Macs” are just rumors but it makes absolute sense. Just look at the facts, Apple just went trough a big transition (OS9 to OSX.) Developers are barely finishing porting their software!!! Apple will not go x86!!! What other PPC option do they have? Motorola announced they will stop developing desktop processors, so I ask again, what other option does apple have? The 970 promises to be an excellent processor and it will definitely be as fast or faster that any P4 released by the end of the year. At 1.8 GHz the specint scores of the 970 are very close to the 3 GHz P4’s scores. At 2.5 GHz it will be as fast or faster and like many people said, it will be 64 bits. Contrary to what some uninformed people posted above, 64bit architecture is faster than a 32bit. Memory is only one advantage and it all depends on the OS and the design of the chip. In some instances, a 64bit processor can process two 32bit data paths a once and as mentioned above, it all depends on the OS and the chip. Since the core of OSX is 64 bit I doubt apple will have any trouble porting OSX to 64bit and optimizing it so that it takes advantage of the 64 bit ints and data paths. Since the 970 is fully backwards compatible with 32bits, I see it as the best option Apple has. IBM has even announced plans to develop the 980’s and Motorola hasn’t mentioned any plans for desktop chips.

Just my 2c

 

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by nuckinfutz
That's generally a non factor. OSX makes it easy to include both Altivec and non altivec binaries in a Package. The end user never needs to know.

but if you don't take advantage of that, your program won't be G3 compatible, right?